No. 13218
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1976
LEWISTOWN PROPANE COMPANY,
A Corporation,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
UTILITY BUILDERS I N C . , A
C o r p o r a t i o n and C I T Y OF LEWISTOWN,
A Montana Municipa 1 C o r p o r a t i o n ,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable B. W, Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
Johnson and F o s t e r , Lewistown, Montana
Robert L, Johnson a r g u e d , Lewistown, Montana
For Respondent:
Smith, Emmons, B a i l l i e and Walsh, G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
W i l l i a m L. B a i l l i e argued and James R. Walsh, a r g u e d ,
G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Alexander, Kuenning, Miller and Ugrin, G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
Edward C. Alexander argued, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Submitted: May 24, 1976
Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court.
In this cause a motion to dismiss the appeal was filed
by respondents on the ground that appellant failed to timely file
notice of appeal as required by statute.
The record discloses: On June 12, 1975, the district
court of Fergus County, Hon. Bernard W. Thomas, Judge presiding,
entered judgment in favor of respondents, Utility Builders, Inc.
and the City of Lewistown. On July 13, 1975, notice of entry
of judgment was mailed to plaintiff and appellant, Lewistown
Propane Company. On June 19, 1975, appellant submitted a proposed
motion for an additional ten days to file "* * * post trial motions
herein and in which to serve and file 9
; * * motion to retax costs
herein." The district court granted this motion on June 20, 1975,
subject to Rule 6 b ,
() M.R.Civ.P.
On July 7, 1975, appellant served notice by mail of its
motion for new trial. Respondents countered by filing on July 11,
1975, motions to strike on the basis the motion for new trial
was untimely, or in the alternative, to continue hearing on
appellant's motion. On July 23, appellant filed two motions:
(1) under Rule 60 (b) (1) and Rule 60 (b) (6), M.R.Civ.P., for
relief from the effect of failure to timely file and serve motion
for new trial; (2) under Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., for an extension
of time in which to file notice of appeal. The district court
granted appellant's motion for relief under Rule 60 (b), M.R.Civ.P.,
on August 11, 1975, denying on the merits the motion for new
trial. Appellant's second motion for an extension of time in which
to file notice of appeal was deemed moot and not ruled upon. On
August 13, 1975, appellant filed notice of appeal.
The only i s s u e presented i s whether a p p e l l a n t f i l e d
t i m e l y n o t i c e of a p p e a l .
The i s s u e i s c l e a r l y c o n t r o l l e d by Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P.,
which s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
"The time w i t h i n which an appeal from a judgment
o r an o r d e r must be taken s h a l l be 30 days from
t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f , except t h a t i n c a s e s where s e r v i c e
of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment i s r e q u i r e d by Rule
77(d) of t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure t h e
time s h a l l be 30 days from t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of
e n t r y of judgment, b u t i f t h e S t a t e of Montana, o r any
p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n t h e r e o f , o r an o f f i c e r o r agency
t h e r e o f i s a p a r t y t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l s h a l l be
f i l e d w i t h i n 60 days from t h e e n t r y of t h e judgment
o r o r d e r o r 60 days from t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of t h e
e n t r y o f judgment. * *." JC (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
no
There can beldoubt one of t h e respondents, t h e C i t y o f Lewis-
town, a Montana municipal c o r p o r a t i o n , i s a p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n
of t h e s t a t e of Montana. A r t i c l e X I , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ;
D i e t r i c h v. C i t y of Deer Lodge, 124 Mont. 8 , 218 P.2d 708; S t a t e
ex r e l . Great F a l l s Housing A u t h o r i t y v. C i t y of Great F a l l s , 110
Mont. 318, 100 P.2d 915.
However, respondents contend t h a t t h e s i x t y day p r o v i s i o n
f o r f i l i n g n o t i c e of a p p e a l , a s contemplated by Rule 5 , M.R.App.
Civ. P . , i s meant t o apply only t o s i t u a t i o n s where t h e s t a t e ,
a p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n t h e r e o f , o r an o f f i c e r o r agency t h e r e o f
i s t h e p a r t y appealing.
We do n o t c o n s t r u e Rule 5 s o narrowly. Nothing i s s a i d i n
Rule 5 a s t o what p o s i t i o n t h e s t a t e , i t s p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s ,
a g e n c i e s , o r o f f i c e r s must occupy on appeal f o r t h e s i x t y day r u l e
t o apply. A l l t h a t i s r e q u i r e d i s t h a t some p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n
be a s t a t e o f f i c e r , s t a t e agency, t h e s t a t e i t s e l f o r a p o l i t i c a l
subdivision thereof.
Therefore, as long a s t h i s requirement i s s a t i s f i e d , any
p a r t y wishing t o appeal t h e judgment o r o r d e r i n t h a t a c t i o n h a s
s i x t y days i n which t o f i l e n o t i c e of appeal. Believing Rule 5
t o be c l e a r on i t s f a c e , we do n o t f e e l compelled t o c i t e any
further legal authority f o r the position t h a t appellant i n the
i n s t a n t c a s e had s i x t y days t o f i l e n o t i c e of appeal.
The q u e s t i o n then becomes whether a p p e l l a n t a c t e d w i t h i n
t h e p r e s c r i b e d s i x t y day p e r i o d . Notice of e n t r y of judgment was
mailed by respondents on June 13, 1975. For purposes of c a l c u l a t i n g
t h e s i x t y days, t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment became e f f e c t i v e on
June 1 6 , 1975, pursuant t o Rule 6 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P. Appellant f i l e d
n o t i c e of appeal on August 13, 1975, two days b e f o r e t h e s i x t y day
time p e r i o d e x p i r e d . Thus n o t i c e o f appeal was t i m e l y f i l e d .
The motion of respondents t o d i s m i s s appeal i s denied.
W Concur:
e
Hon. Gordon Bennett, ~ i s m c t
Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e
James T . Harrison.